2 of the Attorney General (Ministerio Público) and the Office of the Ombudsman, requesting them “to order all necessary measures to comply with the [...] provisional measures.” It also indicated that the “Attorney General [...] [had] advise[d] that he had authorized the 44th prosecutor of the Office of the Attorney General of the Judicial District for the metropolitan area of Caracas and 24th at the national level” in order to comply with the measure contained in the third operative paragraph of the Order issued by the Court in the instant case (supra first having seen paragraph). 3. The brief of December 20, 2002, and its attachment, in which the InterAmerican Commission presented its comments on the first report of the State. In this respect, it indicated that “it consider[ed] it essential that all necessary measures should be expedite[d] for the full protection of the persons named by the InterAmerican Court in the Order of November 27, 2002,” because “the State ha[d] not taken any official action” to comply fully with the provisional measures. 4. Note CDH-S/1166 of December 20, 2002, in which the Secretariat of the Court (hereinafter “the Secretariat”), on the instructions of the President of the Court (hereinafter “the President”), requested the State to present a report on the implementation of the provisional measures by January 10, 2003, at the latest. 5. The second report of the State of January 10, 2003, and its attachments, in which it referred to the implementation of the provisional measures and indicated that on December 11, 2002, “the Attorney General [...] advised that the 44th prosecutor’s unit of the Office of the Attorney General for the Judicial District of the metropolitan area of Caracas and 24th at the national level had been authorized [...]to comply with the measure contained in the third operative paragraph of the Order issued by [the] Court.” 6. The brief of January 22, 2003, and its attachments, in which the Commission presented its comments on the second report of the State. In this respect, it expressed “its profound concern because,” in the said document, Venezuela “limit[ed] itself to repeating the contents of its first report and [did] not provide any information that [would show...] that the provisional measures ordered by the Court were being complied with effectively.” In this brief, the Commission requested the Court “to urgently summon the parties to a public hearing at its seat during its next session in order to evaluate the State’s compliance with the provisional measures.” 7. The Order of the President of January 24, 2003, in which, in consultation with all the judges of the Court, he decided: 1. To convene the State and the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights to a public hearing to be held at the seat of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights on February 25, 2003, from 9.00 a.m. to 1.00 p.m., so that the Court may hear their points of view on the facts and circumstances relating to the implementation of provisional measures in the Liliana Ortega et al., Luis Uzcátegui and Luisiana Ríos et al. cases. […] 8. The communication of the Commission of January 27, 2003, in which it requested the Court to hear the testimony of Liliana Ortega, inter alia, if it decided to convene a public hearing. 9. Note CDH-S/060 of January 27, 2003, in which the Secretariat requested the Commission to submit the purpose of the testimony (supra eighth having seen